1. Waxahachie Corridor Strategy Meeting June 24, 2010 http://www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/transitrail/sdallas/index.asp

2. Agenda 2  Welcome & introductions  Vehicle development update  Conceptual Engineering & Funding Study  Stakeholder meetings  Project summary  Next steps for corridor implementation

3. Vehicle Development  Previous presentation on December 17  Will meet DART Board commitments  Compliant with FRA safety regulations  EPA Tier 4 non-road engine standards  “Off-the-shelf” technology when possible  Light Rail New Technology (LRNT) 3

4. Current Activity & Next Steps  Engineering consultant – Interfleet Technology  Drafting vehicle performance specifications  Accurate & current ridership projections critical  Key design and performance issues  Low floor boarding  Vehicle height and width  Tier 4 engine availability  Width of seats 4

5. Current Activity & Next Steps (cont.)  Continue meetings with  Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)  Develop technology solutions  Complete paperwork requirements  Commuter rail community  Gauge industry interest in vehicle  Vehicle manufacturers  Gauge interest in producing vehicle  Update local community as needed 5

6. FRA Engineering Task Force  Task Force Reports to Rail Safety Advisory Committee’s Passenger Rail Safety Working Group  Mission: Produce technical evaluation criteria and procedures for passenger rail equipment  Four major meetings – September, November, January and March  DART is APTA lead voting member on task force  Final task force report due by late September  Report will benefit project  Defined and agreed upon standards for waivers 6

7. Projected Schedule  June 2010 – Task force issues draft report  Industry currently reviewing document  October 2010 – FRA Alternative Compliance Evaluation Criteria and Procedures to be published  Aug.-Oct. – Industry reviews vehicle specifications  Nov.-Dec. 2010 – Issue RFP for regional vehicle  Nov.-Dec. 2011 – Award contract & NTP  June 2013 – Vehicle delivery begins  Delivery at 2-4 cars per month 7

8. Questions or Comments 8

9. Stakeholder Meetings  City of Dallas  Ellis County  City of Lancaster  City of Red Oak  City of Waxahachie 9

10. Stakeholder Comments  Resolve conflicts with freight  Vehicle technology not critical  Service implementation is critical  Service to employment centers  Accurate demographics  Funding initiatives  Glenn Heights park-n-ride usage  Possibly form a corridor advocacy group  Transit oriented development (TOD)  Update cost estimates to 2010 dollars  Corridor leadership changes 10

11. City of Waxahachie 11

12. City of Red Oak 12

13. City of Lancaster 13

14. City of Dallas 14

15.  Five alternatives identified  Various station locations  All alternatives include Light Rail New Technology (LRNT) and Commuter Rail Technology (CRT)  Alt. 1 – LRNT/CRT (Union Station – Selected Stations)  Alt. 2 – LRNT/CRT (Union Station – All Stations)  Alt. 3 – LRNT/CRT (Southport – Selected Stations)  Alt. 4 – LRNT/CRT (Southport – All Stations)  Alt. 5 – LRNT/CRT (Union Station continuing along TRE – All Stations) Summary of Findings 15

16.  Access  Population  Employment  Ridership projections  Development potential  Local support  Station spacing Station Location Variables 16

17.  Roadway data  Transit data  Land use and zoning  Demographics  Community resources  Air quality  Water quality  Noise  Biological Corridor Level Variables 17

18.  Headways (Train arrival frequency )  LRNT/CRT  20 minutes during peak periods  60 minutes during off-peak periods  Demographics  2030 Demographic Forecast – Year 2030  Published in April 2003  To be updated as part of Mobility 2035 MTP Ridership Modeling Assumptions 18

19. NCTCOG CE&F Study Potential Stations Ledbetter Illinois MLK Corinth Union Station Loop 12 Simpson Stuart Southport All Potential Stations Options South Red Oak Downtown Red Oak North Red Oak Lancaster CBD North Waxahachie US 287 Waxahachie CBD Cedar Valley College Stations Modeled Simpson Stuart Illinois/Ledbetter/Loop 12 Corinth/MLK Union Station Cedar Valley College Southport Downtown Red Oak/South Red Oak North Red Oak North Waxahachie US 287 Waxahachie CBD Lancaster CBD 19

20. Alternative 1 Waxahachie CBD to Union Station – Selected Stations Lancaster CBD Cedar Valley College Simpson Stuart Illinois/Ledbetter/Loop 12 Union Station North Red Oak Downtown/South Red Oak US 287 Corinth/MLK Southport North Waxahachie Waxahachie CBD 780 230 1,800 570 190 80 100 180 340 Total Ridership: 4,300 20

21. Alternative 2 Waxahachie CBD to Union Station – All Stations Lancaster CBD Cedar Valley College Simpson Stuart Illinois/Ledbetter/Loop 12 Union Station North Red Oak Downtown/South Red Oak US 287 Corinth/MLK Southport North Waxahachie Waxahachie CBD 770 1,900 480 200 90 40 160 330 170 60 150 220 Total Ridership: 4,600 21

22. Alternative 3 Waxahachie CBD to Southport – Selected Stations Lancaster CBD Cedar Valley College Simpson Stuart Illinois/Ledbetter/Loop 12 Union Station North Red Oak Downtown/South Red Oak US 287 Corinth/MLK Southport North Waxahachie Waxahachie CBD 380 360 170 940 40 220 Total Ridership: 2,100 22

23. Alternative 4 Waxahachie CBD to Southport – All Stations Lancaster CBD Cedar Valley College Simpson Stuart Illinois/Ledbetter/Loop 12 Union Station North Red Oak Downtown/South Red Oak US 287 Corinth/MLK Southport North Waxahachie Waxahachie CBD 370 360 160 940 40 220 Total Ridership: 2,100 30 60 23

24. Lancaster CBD Cedar Valley College Simpson Stuart Illinois/Ledbetter/Loop 12 Union Station North Red Oak Downtown/South Red Oak US 287 Corinth/MLK Southport North Waxahachie Waxahachie CBD 880 2,900 520 210 100 50 160 370 180 60 240 260 Total Ridership: 5,900 Alternative 5 Waxahachie CBD to Union Station – Interlining with TRE 24

25. Lancaster CBD Cedar Valley College Simpson Stuart Illinois/Ledbetter/Loop 12 Union Station North Red Oak Downtown/South Red Oak US 287 Corinth/MLK Southport North Waxahachie Waxahachie CBD 890 2,800 600 270 120 350 270 Total Ridership: 5,300 Alternative 5a Waxahachie CBD to Union Station – Interlining with TRE 25

26. Lancaster CBD Cedar Valley College Simpson Stuart Illinois/Ledbetter/Loop 12 Union Station North Red Oak Downtown/South Red Oak US 287 Corinth/MLK Southport North Waxahachie Waxahachie CBD 870 2,780 620 460 300 Total Ridership: 5,000 Alternative 5b Waxahachie CBD to Union Station – Interlining with TRE 26

27. 2030 Ridership Estimates Lancaster CBD Cedar Valley College Simpson Stuart Illinois/Ledbetter/Loop 12 Union Station North Red Oak Downtown/South Red Oak US 287 Corinth/MLK Southport North Waxahachie Waxahachie CBD Alt 1 – 4,300 780 230 1,800 570 190 80 100 180 340 770 1,900 480 200 90 40 160 330 170 60 150 220 Alt 2 – 4,600 380 360 170 940 40 220 Alt 3 – 2,100 370 360 160 940 40 220 30 60 Alt 3 – 2,100 880 2,900 520 210 100 50 160 370 180 60 240 260 Alt 5 – 5,900 27

28. 2030 Ridership Estimates Alt 5a – 5,300 890 270 2,800 600 270 120 350 870 2,780 620 460 300 Alt 5b – 5,000 28 Lancaster CBD Cedar Valley College Simpson Stuart Illinois/Ledbetter/Loop 12 Union Station North Red Oak Downtown/South Red Oak US 287 Corinth/MLK Southport North Waxahachie Waxahachie CBD

29. DRAFT Conceptual Engineering & Funding Study Summary of Findings 29 Project Measure Alternative No-Build12345 Length (miles)030.9 20.7 64.5 Primary ModeN/ALRNT/CRT Interlining ServiceN/ANone TRE Interlined TerminusN/AUnion Station Southport Union Station Number of Stations0121669 Transit Estimated Daily Ridership Linked Regional Transit Trips Corridor Travel Time (minutes) Interlined Ridership 0 296,276 N/A 4,300 298,805 41.3 N/A 4,600 298,485 42.1 N/A 2,100 297,174 26.9 N/A 2,100 297,264 27.7 N/A 5,900 298,915 95.9 1,400 Property Acquisition (ROW Needed for Alignment) None Total Cost (millions, 2009 dollars) LRNT CRT N/A $533 $475 $578 $520 $328 $299 $362 $341 $701 $576 Land Use Compatibility with Local Plans LowHigh Medium High Major Employers4160 11 60 Activity Centers751171222227122 Community Facilities871441513543151 Historic and Archeological Resources Existing Historical Sites Archeological Investigations Potential Historical Structures 25 8 87 70 24 1,785 72 26 2,278 44 13 881 46 13 1,294 72 26 2,278 Parks, Trails and Recreational Facilities Facilities adjacent to Rail Corridor Facilities near Stations 0 12 16 40 16 44 5 14 5 17 16 44 Hazardous/Regulated Materials Sites adjacent to Rail Corridor Sites near Stations 0000 9898 9 13 3434 3737 9 13 Air Quality ImpactNoneMinimal Noise (linear feet) Potential Sensitive Land Uses 035,480 22,08422,04835,480 Vibration (linear feet) Potential Sensitive Land Uses Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 000000 0 19,744 15,737 0 19,744 15,737 0 13,456 8,592 0 13,456 8,592 0 19,744 715,737 Water Resources Floodplain Crossings (in linear feet) Stream Crossings 0000 37,385 13 37,385 13 10,862 8 10,862 8 37,385 13 Ecosystems000000 Prime Farmlands (acres)01,027.51,899.51,027.51,657.91,899.5 ConstructabilityN/AMedium

30. Capital Cost 30 Alt.Service Area Description New Length (miles) Required Vehicles (LRNT/CRT) Total Capital Cost (million 2009 $) (LRNT/CRT) Cost / Mile (million $) (LRNT/CRT) 1 Waxahachie CBD to Union Station LRNT/CRT Service to selected Stations 30.912/6$ 533/475$ 17/15 2 Waxahachie CBD to Union Station LRNT/CRT Service to all Stations 30.912/6$ 578/520$ 19/17 3 Waxahachie CBD to Southport LRNT/CRT Service to selected Stations 20.77/4$ 328/299$ 16/14 4 Waxahachie CBD to Southport LRNT/CRT Service to all Stations 20.77/4$ 362/341$ 18/16 5 Waxahachie CBD to T&P Station LRNT/CRT Service interlined with TRE 64.526/13$ 701/576$ 23/19 Source: NCTCOG, June 2010 Notes: 1. Cost estimates are “rough order-of-magnitude” estimates based on a conceptual level of planning 2. Cost estimates do not include costs for environmental and/or hazardous materials impacts DRAFT

31. Capital Cost & Ridership 31 Alternative Capital Cost (million 2009 $) (LRNT/CRT) 2030 Annual Ridership Annualized Cost / Rider (LRNT/CRT) 1 $ 533/475 1,204,000$ 31/28 2 $ 578/5201,288,000 $ 31/28 3 $ 328/299588,000 $ 39/36 4 $ 362/341588,000 $ 43/41 5 $ 701/5761,652,000 $ 30/24 Source: NCTCOG, June 2010 Notes: 1. Cost estimates are “rough order-of-magnitude” estimates based on a conceptual level of planning 2. Cost estimates do not include costs for environmental and/or hazardous materials impacts DRAFT

32. Innovative Finance Initiative (IFI)  DART and T requested IFI  DART and T providing financial models  IFI Goal  Develop innovative financial plan  Identify funding sources for 62 mile Cotton Belt Corridor  Construct  Operate  Maintain 32

33. Possible Innovative Elements  Vehicle manufacturing facility  New non-member city policies  New fare structure  Cost/revenue linkage  Economies of scale 33

34. IFI Schedule  Proposals due  July 2  Consultant interviews  July 16  NCTCOG Executive Board selection  July 22  Estimated start date  July 26  Contract length  Approximately 6 – 9 months 34

35. RTC Roles  Solicit and contract with Financial Advisory Firm(s)  Investigate candidate funding sources  Identify needed local, state, and national actions  Collaborate with DART and The T to identify cost savings  NCTCOG Staff will collaborate on environmental process 35

36. Transportation Agency Roles  Initiate & lead environmental process  Develop LRNT vehicle  Collaborate on engineering issues  Construction 36

37. General Discussion/Next Steps  Moving forward  Ideas and suggestions 37

38. Questions & Comments Tom Shelton, P.E., AICP Senior Program Manager Streamlined Project Delivery tshelton@nctcog.org (817) 704-5633 Kevin Feldt, AICP Program Manager Streamlined Project Delivery kfeldt@nctcog.org (817) 704-2529 Nathan Drozd Transportation Planner III Streamlined Project Delivery ndrozd@nctcog.org (817) 704-5635 http://www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/transitrail/sdallas/index.asp 38